WASSEM ATTIEH vs. KOGLEX (GH) LTD. & ANOR. SAMIR KHOURY & ANOR. [2002]DLSC2376

Date	2002-04-24
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. 37/2001
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC2376

A. K. B. AMPIAH JSC

F. Y. KPEGAH JSC

E. D. K. ADJABENG JSC

G. K. ACQUAH JSC

W. A. AGUTUBA JSC

T. K. ADZOE JSC.

MR. AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE APPLICANT.

MR. STANLEY AMARTEIFIO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2002]DLSC2376
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >WASSEM ATTIEH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KOGLEX (GH) LTD. &amp; ANOR.&nbsp;&nbsp; SAMIR KHOURY &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
MOTION NO. 37/2001<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
24TH APRIL, 2002.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

A.
K. B. AMPIAH JSC, F. Y. KPEGAH JSC, E.
D. K. ADJABENG JSC, G. K. ACQUAH JSC, W.
A. AGUTUBA JSC, T. K. ADZOE JSC.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>JOYCE
BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C.:<o:p></o:p>This
is an application for the Review of the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 9th
May 2001 brought by Defendants/Applicants under Rule particularly 54(a) of the
Supreme Court Rules 1996. (C.I.16) which Rule provides that:<o:p></o:p>"Rule
54. The court may review any decision made or given by it on any of the
following grounds<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp; exceptional circumstances which have resulted
in miscarriage of justice<o:p></o:p>(b)
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of
due diligence, was not within the applicants knowledge or could not be produced
by him at the time when the decision was given"<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/Respondent opposes this application for Review on the ground that the
grounds given for this application do not satisfy the relevant test namely
exceptional circumstances which have resulted in miscarriage of
justice"&nbsp; as provided under Rule
54(a) C.I.16<o:p></o:p>The
Supreme Court has discussed what amounts to exceptional circumstances leading
to a miscarriage of Justice in many cases since 1987. The Practice Direction
(Reviews in the Supreme Court) (1987-88) 2 GLR 598 provided that:<o:p></o:p>"The only ground for a review is
that the circumstances are exceptional and that in the interest of justice
there should be a review."<o:p></o:p>However
in the 1992 Constitution the power to review its decisions was given to the
Supreme Court under Article 133(1) and the Supreme Court Rules 1996 (C.I.16) was
passed to regulate the review jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>Article
133(1) of the 1992 Constitution says that:<o:p></o:p>"The Supreme Court may review any
decision made or given by it on such terms and subject to such conditions as
may be prescribed by rules of court" <o:p></o:p>The
rules referred to in the said Article is Supreme Court Rules 1996 (C.I.16). The
applicant herein has come under Rule 54(a) namely that exceptional
circumstances exist in this case which has resulted in miscarriage of Justice.
On this ground for review as I said earlier, the Supreme Court has, in many
cases endeavoured to define what is meant by "exceptional circumstances
leading to a miscarriage of Justice".<o:p></o:p>In
the case of Nasali v. Addy 2 (1987 - 88) 2 GLR 286 at 288 Taylor JSC said:<o:p></o:p>"
... Therefore, whatever factors the applicant relies on must be such that the
exercise of our power of review becomes extremely necessary to avert
irreparable harm to him.<o:p></o:p>A
mere rearguing of his original applicant would not suffice.<o:p></o:p>See
also Fosuhene v. Pomaa (1987 - 88) 2 GLR P.105"<o:p></o:p>Also
in the case of Agyekum v. Asakum Engineering and Construction Ltd. (1992) 2 GLR
635 wherein Francois J.S.C. said at p.651<o:p></o:p>"The Supreme Court has expressed
the view many times before, that the review jurisdiction does not provide a
platform for rehearsing previous legal positions, whatever new learning and
erudition are thrown into the melting pot. The acid test that remains as
always, the existence of exceptional circumstances and the likelihood of a
miscarriage of justice that would provoke the conscience to look at the matter
again. I would consequently, for my part, reject the invitation to transverse
known corridors revisiting the pros and cons of argument only to conclude that
a stance remains unswervingly unshaken. I am also firmly against the attempt to
turn the review jurisdiction into a further avenue of appeal. We have no
constitutional powers to do so."<o:p></o:p>I
agree with the said learned Judges in these specified cases. The principles
provided by them still holds good today. In this application the applicant have
submitted that <o:p></o:p>